On Thursday, an attorney representing David Miranda told reporters outside a London courtroom that her client had been granted a “limited injunction” to halt the British government’s access to digital data recently seized by local authorities.

Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for The Guardian, who has been at the forefront of exposing documents and other information from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

Miranda told the Brazilian newspaper O Globo (Google Translate) that British officials seized “a phone, a computer, a PlayStation Vita, a Wi-Fi device, two watches, an electric razor, and pen drives with information from Poitras to Greenwald.”

“The court accepted today that in order for the home office and police to look at that material, there has to be a genuine threat to national security,” Gwendolen Morgan, Miranda’s lawyer, said. “The home office and police now have seven days to prove that there is a genuine threat to national security rather than make mere assertions as they have done today.”

She added that Miranda would have his items returned as of “midnight on Saturday.”

Reading from an official court document, Morgan said that the Home Office and British police were not to “inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, [or] distribute [the data], whether domestically or to any foreign government or agency,” but that included an exception in the name of “national security.”

Jonathan Laidlaw, an attorney representing the Metropolitan police, described the data to the court as "highly sensitive material the disclosure of which would be gravely injurious to public safety."

There were "tens of thousands" of pages of digital material, Laidlaw added.

On Thursday, Greenwald said on Twitter that he would “be willing to bet anything they have not accessed documents—which isn't the same as saying they no idea what they are.”

He added, “There are lots of other ways for them to think they know what's in there, including monitoring of communications.”

TheGuardian journalist also said that Miranda gave up passwords to his phone and his computer. Greenwald also clarified that Miranda did give up passwords to his own personal Facebook and e-mail accounts, “which reveal nothing. They threatened him with prison if he didn't.”

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is the Senior Business Editor at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

Well, obviously you have to trust them.

Okay, seriously - I would assume that this has an impact on what legal resources they can bring to bear to get through the encryption - ie they can't compel the Guardian to provide keys.

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

Exactly. I would be very surprised if they didn't create images of the hard drives etc.

So when I travel to a foreign country I should change all of my passwords to local insults. "Fuk-U-ya-[add ethnic slur]-bastards". That would be my response when they ask for my passwords. They could never say I wasn't cooperating.

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

They can't. The order is for show only, as the exception for "national security" demonstrates. They can do - they "can have done" - anything the want, as long as it either can't be proven, or they can say with a straight face it was for national security. At best, this gets him back his gear next week, rather than next year, or never.

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

Exactly. I would be very surprised if they didn't create images of the hard drives etc.

That's pretty much SOP I imagine for anyone in law enforcement; seize, copy, and review at their leisure while they drag their feet in responding to whatever legal council you retained. And the kicker here is that you'll never really know if they made a clone image or not since, as far as I'm aware, the cloning process doesn't leave any "fingerprints" behind that are viewable (of course if I'm wrong on this please correct me since I'd be curious). Literally once an item leaves your possession they've got whole LABS setup for this kind of thing and like the guys at Geek Squad more happy people to review whatever bits of data they retrieved.

Bottom line, if the government in power wants something from you they WILL get it from you one way or the other. The only thing you can do is hope you eventually get to talk to legal council, that they don't physically assault you, and that they don't tazer you. But rest assured the memories will stick with you for a lifetime.

Sounds like we need to work on self-clearing harddrives. Like an electromagnet hooked to a logic board that requires a password and something like a pre-set TPM module to open, otherwise the magnet triggers.

I would bring up the thermite-loaded drives I saw somewhere years ago (and which were probably someone's DIY solution anyway), but then they'd be banned from most forms of travel.

So when I travel to a foreign country I should change all of my passwords to local insults. "Fuk-U-ya-[add ethnic slur]-bastards". That would be my response when they ask for my passwords. They could never say I wasn't cooperating.

No, but it would be interpreted as disrespectful and an escalation of resistance of authority, and definitely prove a need for more intense scrutiny of your person and possessions. If you're lucky, you'll be kicked out of country. If not, you'll be held for further interrogation.

I'm surprised by how reasonable the turnaround time for getting his items returned is over there. But it's hard not to laugh at the claim there is "tens of thousands of pages of material." What a joke. Miranda may have been compelled to give up his email and computer account passwords, but there's absolutely no way in hell he gave up the passwords to all the encrypted storage. There's no way he even knows them.

So, image and distribute to your hearts content, and if you're lucky you'll have the plaintext in a thousand or so years. Probably much, much longer.

Who sends files physically especially when you're going to transit one of the countries in question? I bet they talked a lot about sending this file or that electronically but the files themselves are junk or copies of some catalog somewhere. Encrypt the hell out of them knowing it'll fail. Then chuckle that they have a list of SMB connectors from Allied Electronics or some such.

edit: I bet the true purpose of the trip was to establish new safe protocols for the transfer and storage of more documents electronically.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

Who sends files physically especially when you're going to transit one of the countries in question? I bet they talked a lot about sending this file or that electronically but the files themselves are junk or copies of some catalog somewhere. Encrypt the hell out of them knowing it'll fail. The chuckle that they have a list of SMB connectors from Allied Electronics or some such.

I think it was just a show to embarrass the US and its loyal poodle, the UK even further. They have multiple encrypted copies in many different hands around the world.

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

In a democracy when the police seize material it can be traced through a chain of custody, using (relatively) tamper-proof seals and logbooks. I don't know how they do it in the UK.

Since the information was likely encrypted they probably can't access it. It sounds like they are more intent on destroying it than accessing it though.

Also, if they did access it after a judge ruled they can't access it then it probably could not be used in court as evidence.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

I'm not certain the NSA knows just what files Snowden took. According to their public statements they still don't know how he got everything he did. If they can decrypt the files they can be proactive with their spin control rather than getting caught between lies and half-truths when new documents are released.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

One must assume that listening devices, trojans,zero day exploits, etc have been loaded on to all of the electonic devices.

In this instance I am actually frustrated with the way Glenn and his team have handled the documents. If authorities have really gotten to the files and have been tipped off as to a partial extent of the documents that Snowden was able to retrieve this erodes one advantage the news cycle had and could possibly translate into a more coordinated response as more leaks are published.

While I feel Article 7 was abused, they really should have seen this coming from a mile away. In that sense I do feel the transport was reckless.

I'm going to disagree with you in this case, I think it was rather smart of them to do it this way for a couple of reasons. Cryptography experts, shoot me down if I get this wrong:

1. Publicity. I think by now it's absolutely assured that every possible form of communication between Greenwald and the rest is being monitored and recorded in full (and they know it). Secure communication is possible, but physically transporting secure data this way forces authorities to make a very public effort to acquire the data, which as we have seen was rather embarrassing for them. And useless. And expensive. At least make them work for it. This entire event is consuming resources that might have been spent on some other part of the investigation but instead they were wasted here, on this, with the world watching. And if poor Mr. Miranda ever gets tired of being detained or questioned, or is added to the no-fly list, all Greenwald and company need is another mule.

2. Security options for protecting data-in-motion are good, and probably good enough, but not as good as those available for data-at-rest, and I don't mean just the size of the potential keyspace and novel arrangements of layers of protection.

3. Security through obscurity is always a Bad Thing, but that's not the same as consolidating risk, which in cryptography is good. Physically transporting material this way means that it never has to be touched by a computer which is connected to the Internet, and an air-gapped machine is a great way to help minimize your attack surface.

The part I'm interested in is how they plan to transport new shared secrets to decrypt data should their existing secrets (probably shared before this whole thing blew up) are compromised. That could get hairy.

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

In a democracy when the police seize material it can be traced through a chain of custody, using (relatively) tamper-proof seals and logbooks. I don't know how they do it in the UK.

Since the information was likely encrypted they probably can't access it. It sounds like they are more intent on destroying it than accessing it though.

Also, if they did access it after a judge ruled they can't access it then it probably could not be used in court as evidence.

Used in court as evidence? What court? What would it matter? This is the Gestapo we're talking about here.

Sounds like we need to work on self-clearing harddrives. Like an electromagnet hooked to a logic board that requires a password and something like a pre-set TPM module to open, otherwise the magnet triggers.

I would bring up the thermite-loaded drives I saw somewhere years ago (and which were probably someone's DIY solution anyway), but then they'd be banned from most forms of travel.

One of the benefits to block ciphers is that such elaborate and failure prone killswitches aren't necessary and the utility of the disk is retained. Also, HDDs have very good secure erase routines built right into their firmware, so disposal isn't a problem either.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

Correct. However since strong encryption is indistinguishable from noise, it would be easy for the drives to be overwritten with different noise which doesn't produce plaintext when decrypted with the usual key. Without hashing the entire drive there'd be no way to tell anything had been altered.

But for what? The devices were confiscated. Even when returned they will never be trustworthy again, so the authorities don't even have to sabotage the contents. I would never bother risking plugging them in at all.

“The court accepted today that in order for the home office and police to look at that material, there has to be a genuine threat to national security,” Gwendolen Morgan, Miranda’s lawyer, said. “The home office and police now have seven days to prove that there is a genuine threat to national security rather than make mere assertions as they have done today.”

The last time I checked the NSA was a US-based Government Agency - NOT a UK-based agency. What authority do they have ? (acting on behalf of the US is bullshit)

Reading from an official court document, Morgan said that the Home Office and British police were not to “inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, [or] distribute [the data], whether domestically or to any foreign government or agency,” but that included an exception in the name of “national security.”

This is the scourge of our day—"national security". It's the boogie man, it's the "won't someone please think of the children" mantra and a get out of jail free card all rolled into one.

Are you in government and want to operate with impunity? Just invoke "national security". It can circumvent any law, any court, any governmental structure, any rights and any guarantees that citizens may have once—naively—thought they possessed.

Would be funny if a "whistleblower" from the police released the documents to the NSA because he thought it would be in the national interest. It would be illegal but technically snowdens activities are too.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

One must assume that listening devices, trojans,zero day exploits, etc have been loaded on to all of the electonic devices.

I cannot see how the courts can stop them looking at data they have had for a week. What ever data they have it will have already been analyzed. How would the courts know that the data has been looked at?

Bottom line, if the government in power wants something from you they WILL get it from you one way or the other. The only thing you can do is hope you eventually get to talk to legal council, that they don't physically assault you, and that they don't tazer you. But rest assured the memories will stick with you for a lifetime.

If due process is really that suspended it is up to the people to elect in people who will repeal (or significantly amend) the patriot act in the US (and whatever the act is called in the UK) or continue to stomach these abuses of government. Personally I would rather have the patriot act repealed and the NSA stand down on the monitoring and incur a higher probability of being caught up in an attack than have due process eroded or gone and my privacy invaded.

Reading from an official court document, Morgan said that the Home Office and British police were not to “inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, [or] distribute [the data], whether domestically or to any foreign government or agency,” but that included an exception in the name of “national security.”

This is the scourge of our day—"national security". It's the boogie man, it's the "won't someone please think of the children" mantra and a get out of jail free card all rolled into one.

Are you in government and want to operate with impunity? Just invoke "national security". It can circumvent any law, any court, any governmental structure, any rights and any guarantees that citizens may have once—naively—thought they possessed.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

One must assume that listening devices, trojans,zero day exploits, etc have been loaded on to all of the electonic devices.

Greenwald will have to destroy all of the devices.

Yep. If I were in Miranda's or Greenwald's position, I wouldn't trust any of those devices to even come within range of my home's Wi-Fi network.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it irrelevant that they've taken copies? The data was intended for Mr Greenwald, and as long as he gets it back he can then continue to analyse and release it. Whether or not copies have been made is incidental to that.

I would think that if data collected seemed to be of high value, it would be copied then erased when located by UK authorites. Becasue if Greenwald noticed the data missing, what is he going to do...write an article and confirm that is what Miranda was doing? Highly unlikely.